Talk:Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/Archive 1

Remove Iranian theory

Moved from article space by Vicki Rosenzweig 22:09, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC):

"This is written off the top of my head, some details may not be exact. Please add details as known. The assanation was completed by the Iranian Savak. The method was a camera that had four small gun barrels hidden within the lens. Sirhan was designated to asail Mr. Kennedy within the confines of the pantry area should Mr. Kennedy choose to exit through there. The confirmation for the hit was the presence of the photographer in the bright yellow sweater. Sirhan began to fire, was overcome as bullets sprayed about, and in doing so provided the diversion that allowed the photographer to close in and fire at point blank range with the gun/lens at the back of Mr. Kennedy's skull. The film will bear out the sequence of events, including the oddly close proximity the yellowed sweatered photographer maintained on Mr. Kennedy's flank. Additional details cannot be made available at this time, safe to say this was a failsafe operation that could have followed many paths to the same result. TT0007"

Photographer? I thought it was supposed to be Cesar.

I never have found out how an 8-shot pistol with someone's thumb behind its trigger delivered 11 slugs.

New book, out, BTW: ISBN 0060580534 It has Robert Vaughn's endorsement[1] (whoopee) =p Kwantus 17:40, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Angles don't support Sirhan

Someone should add that another key support for a second gunman is that the angles of entry for the bullets don't match with Sirhan's direction at all.

disturbing coins

There are some disturbing coins under the picture of Kennedy... perhaps they should be removed, but I 'stole' it from Robert F. Kennedy. Pascal 22:18, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The coins pictured in the article are of the special dollar coin that the US Government produced in honor of RFK in the late 90's. I'll remove them, since they have nothing to do with the RFK assassination itself. Unlike the Kennedy Half, the RFK silver dollar wasn't produced in honor of RFK after his death, they were done as a fund raiser for a charity named after RFK AFAIK.

Hope this helps!

PS: The Government stopped minting special silver dollars in the 50's until 1982.

hoshie 14:24, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bizarre

I'm somewhat astonished to see that none of you have picked up the most recent news that George Campbell and David Morales have now been positively identified as being present at the Ambassador Hotel the night RFK was murdered.

This is basically The Smoking Gun.

Check the news, slowcoaches!Iamlondon 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the deal with Muslim?

Why does the fact that Sirhan Sirhan was a Christian not a Muslim have any relevance to whether the PLO was involved? Why are you putting it back? Are you an anti-Muslim who believes that only Muslims can be PLO terrorists? In which case that is very POV and not appropriate for this page.Dabbler 18:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The article plainly states that Sirhan could have been acting independently, not at the behest of any larger organization. You are looking for bias where none exists.

The Sirhan Sirhan article states that he changed religions several times in his later life, yet this article states that he was a lifelong Roman Catholic. Which is correct?

Another scenario

Another possible scenario - when Sirhan started shooting, one of the security guards drew his revolver & accidentally shot Kennedy. I believe Sirhan would still be legally guilty of murder if such were the case--JimWae 07:34, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

This seems at least as likely as any conspiracy --JimWae 23:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A news article about this page!

"SAN FRANCISCO - Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows anyone to contribute articles, is tightening its rules for submitting entries following the disclosure that it ran a piece falsely implicating a man in the Kennedy assassinations. Wikipedia will now require users to register before they can create articles, Jimmy Wales, founder of the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Web site, said Monday.[2]" Is it true? --tequendamia 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Mel Ayton article

i read this article is it a good source to put in there? he cites zero evidence. most of it sounds completely made up. things like this are a dead give away:

"The propaganda used by Palestinians had no less an effect on the younger generations of children from the 1940s to the present day. From an early age Sirhan had been taught by educators, family members, and friends that the Jews were "treacherous," "an evil enemy" and it was his "duty" to rid Jews from Palestine. Sirhan's generation was taught to hate, despise, and fear Jews, to believe that it was not only right for every self-respecting Arab to fight the Jewish state and that it was just and desirable to destroy it. Undoubtedly, this milieu of hatred had an intense effect on Sirhan as he grew up."

he doesn't cite a source for this. he's making up an opinion about something that happened in 1940. right before that he compares the palestinians to Nazis. more of the same:

"Sirhan's irrational hatred and anger towards the Jews did not originate with any mental illness he may have suffered. In fact, his attitude was no different from that of the majority of Palestinians and the rest of the Arab peoples. His ideas were entirely rational within the norms of the Arab world."

so here Sirhan's motivation is that all arabs are antisemitic. it's ridiculous.

i'm taking that part out.

Page discusses conspiracy theories more than Actual Assassination

This page is in danger of turning into the "Robert F. Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories" page. I'm not against these alternative theories being on the page, as they are thought-inspiring, but they overwhelm the basic function of the page, which is to present the facts about RFK's assassination. The "official" story of the shooting is almost sidelined by all the paragraphs devoted to convincing the reader that the official recorded facts are unreliable.

Additionally, almost all the links are to "Alternate Theories" of dubious reliability.

Again, I don't mind these theories being on the page, but ought they not to be balanced with more facts from the "official" version? Woodson 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, more links to eyewitness testimony, and the presented facts of the case, would at least better represent what is claimed to have happened, so that readers can better separate the official story from the conspiracy/"second-man"/Manchurian Candidate assertions. Woodson 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Full of Errors

Conspiracy theories are one thing, but having honest intellectual debate about this subject is another. This page tends to give too much credence to conspiracy and not enough to actual facts. At one point, the athor says that, "there is no record of RFK supporting Israel during that period." In fact, there is evidence to RFK's support of Israel. When Sirhan Sirhan was processed, two newspaper clippings were found in his pocket. One of them was from the Pasadena Independent Star News, dated June 2. There is also much reason to believe that Sirhan Sirhan wanted RFK to die. The best evidence of this fact can be found on a page in Sirhan's notebook. He writes, "RFK must die- RFK must be killed. Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated... Robert F. Kennedy must assassinated before 5 June 68." The whole page is dedicated to this mantra. Author Dan E Moldea concludes his book The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy with a story related to him by author Michael McCowan, which goes as follows: "Suddenly, in the midst of their conversation, Sirhan started to explain the moment when his eyes met Kennedy's just before he shot him.

  Shocked by what Sirhan had just admitted, McCowan asked,'Then why, Sirhan, didn't you shoot him between the eyes?'
  With no hesitation and no apparent remorse, Sirhan replied,'Because that son of a bitch turned his head at the last second.'"

If this appaling admission isn't enough to convict Sirhan, then I don't know what will. To admit conspiracy is to absolve Sirhan of his crime of murdering an important individual that had the potential to alter the course of American history. This page ought to be dedicated to upholding the facts and conclusions that place blame on the guily party and give the proper respect to the slain Kennedy. Dissent is cool 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Dissent Is Cool

As to the "RFK must die" journal entry, there have been a number of handwriting experts who have claimed that the handwriting for this entry does NOT match Sirhan's handwriting for any other entries in that journal. Plus the question of why Sirhan, who only had a grade school education, would have used English phrases like "unshakeable obsession". These issues should be discussed further.

And, while RFK may have been a supporter of Israel, so was EVERY OTHER Democratic candidate, as was the Democratic incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, AND all the Republican candidates of that year. The only serious 1968 presidential candidate who could accurately have been described as "anti-Israel" was segregationist third-party candidate George Wallace(the candidate, for whatever it may be worth, that Thane Cesar later admitted to supporting).

Therefore, there was nothing in RFK's position on Israel that would have marked him for death in Sirhan's eyes any more than any other major party candidate of that year.

And the one thing that opponents of the idea of a conspiracy to shoot RFK STILL have never adequately addressed is the finding of Dr. Noguchi in his autopsy of RFK that the fatal shot was fired from behind, at an upward "nearly verticle" angle and at point-blank range. Sirhan was NEVER in position to have fired this shot. Sirhan was in position, however, to have inflicted the non-fatal wounds suffered by the other shooting victims that evening. Ken Burch 11:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Ken Burch

I agree with the above poster.Who edits this garbage? Entries for this subject must rank as one of the most biased and undersourced I have ever read.You quote me in part but ignore my research about Shane O'Sullivan's ridiculous RKK/CIA allegations and Steve Barber's article about the acoustics evidence which is challenges everything about the new Discovery Times documentary - see below -

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:ArMoa1_0RaUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination+rfk+assassination&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

You omit so much it is difficult to know where to start - perhaps here - where you will find further books and information which challenge your conspiracy-minded editor:

http://hnn.us/articles/32193.html

http://hnn.us/articles/38496.html

http://hnn.us/articles/36915.html

http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Terrorist-Sirhan-Assassination-Kennedy/dp/1597970794/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6339153-5263333?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181750129&sr=8-1

You may also wish to add the following to your paragraph on the Discovery Times documentary, in which I appear - and you mention in a recent addition to the entry:

There are a number of issues which the Discovery Times program did not take into account:

• Conspiracists do not understand the differences in the qualifications of the experts interviewed for the documentary. Unlike Philip Van Praag and Wes Dooley, who are, essentially, audio engineers, Philip Harrison is a professional acoustics expert who works for a professional acoustics firm, JP French Associates.

• Conspiracists are misrepresenting the provenance and quality of the digitized version of the tape used by Barber and Harrison. They comment that Harrison did not have access to the ‘Master Tapes’. Van Praag had this to say about the copy of the digitized version sent to Steve Barber who in turn forwarded it to Philip Harrison, “The copy I made for you resulted from a request to me from the CSA, asking if I would do them a favor by responding to their requestor (Mel Ayton) regarding his desire to obtain a copy of better quality than the stock cassettes that the CSA normally provides…….. I did not apply any filtering to the recording you obtained from me. The transcription I made utilized the FINEST studio professional console analog equipment for playback (quite necessary), along with multiple digital and analog machines on the record side.” After examining the digitized version of the tape Steve characterized it as “…identical to the cassette in every way, except that it is much clearer.” Digitized copies lose nothing in the transaction.

• Conspiracy bloggers are misrepresenting the teams of acoustics experts and purported acoustics experts who have examined the Pruszynski Tape. They allege that three experts say there were more than 8 shots and one expert dissents. This mischaracterizes the truth of the matter.

Philip Harrison, together with Professor Peter French, a lecturer in acoustics at the University of York examined the Pruszynski Tape and found no more than 8 shots recorded on it. In the United States, audio expert Steve Barber and Michael O’Dell and Dr Chad Zimmerman, who have a wealth of experience researching the scientific aspects of the JFK assassination, also examined the tape and found no more than 8 shots. Both teams had independently examined the tape then Barber and Harrison consulted with each other. We can eliminate the ‘Dutch’acoustics expert as no scientific journal in the world would accept findings from an anonymous source.

We thus have three experts in the United States, Philip van Praag, Wes Dooley and his assistant, who examined the tape and who concluded there were 10 or 13 shots fired and five experts in the US and UK who found no more than the acoustic signatures of 8 shots fired. Philip Harrison provided a written report of his findings. Steve Barber was interviewed for my book and his comments about his research is included within the narrative of my book. The Discovery Times Channel ‘teams’ have produced no written report. It should be quite obvious to EVERY person in the scientific community that Van Praag’s and Wes Dooley’s findings can never be accepted without publication of their research for peer review. (No scientific journal in the world will accept anything the so-called Danish expert has to say whilst he remains anonymous.)

• Van Praag’s comment to Steve Barber following the broadcast of the Discovery Times documentary (“Until I finish sorting it out …..a day, a week, a month…”) reveals how Van Praag did not complete his research into the tape but had the audacity to present his half-cocked findings to viewers.

Mel Ayton

Some information from the FBI review of the Sirhan Sirhan trial:

All info below taken from the 1977 review by Thomas F. Kranz, Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. [3]

(from page 3) In an indictment returned by the Grand Jury of Los Angeles County, defendant Sirhan was charged in Count I with the murder of Robert Francis Kennedy in violation of Penal Code Section 187. In Counts II - VI defendant Sirhan was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder of Paul Schrade, Owen Stroll, William Weisel, Elizabeth Evans, and Ira Goldstein, in violation of Penal Code Section 217. Defendant Sirhan pleaded not guilty. The trial court denied defendant's motion for separate juries on the issue of guilt and the possible issue of penalty was denied. Defendant's motion to quash and set aside the petit jury list was denied, as was his motion to quash the indictment. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged on all counts, the jury fixing the degree of the offense charged in Count I at murder in the first degree. After further proceedings on the issue of penalty, the jury fixed the punishment on Count I at death. The defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction, and the California Supreme Court modified the judgment to provide a punishment of life imprisonment instead of death for the murder of Senator Kennedy.

(from page 5) Earlier in the year, Sirhan had had a conversation with Alvin Clark, a trash collector employed by the City of Pasadena, in which Sirhan had expressed his concern about how the assassination of Martin Luther King would effect "Negro people and how the Negroes would vote in the coming election." Clark testified at trial that he told Sirhan he was going to vote for Senator Kennedy and Sirhan responded by saying, "What do you want to vote for that son-of-a-b for? Because I'm planning on shooting him" Clark then told Sirhan that Senator Kennedy had paid the expenses of bringing Martin Luther King's body back from Tennessee and that "you will be killing one of the best men in the country." Clark remembered that Sirhan stated that Senator Kennedy had done this merely for the publicity involved, and that this conversation had occured in mid-April, 1968.

(from page 6) While Sirhan was being held in the pantry awaiting the arrival of the L.A.P.D., Rafter Johnson asked Sirhan repeatedly, "why did you do it?" Sirhan replied, "Let me explain" or "I can explain." At this time Sirhan also remarked in answer to Jess Unruh's question "Why him?", "I did it for my country," and a few seconds later, "It is too late".

Sirhan's pockets were emptied and the following items were taken from his possession: an automobile key, two live .22 caliber bullets and an expended bullet, two newspaper clippings (one from the Pasadena Independent Star News dated May 26, 1968, a story by columnist David Lawrence which in part noted noted that in a recent speech Senator Kennedy had "favored aid to Israel with arms if necessary."; the other newspaper clipping, an advertisement from an unidentified newspaper inviting the public "to come and see and hear Senator Robert Kennedy on Sunday, June 2, 1968, at 8:00 p.m., Coconut Grove, Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles"). Also removed from Sirhan's pockets was $410.66 in cash, including four one hundred dollar bills. No wallet, identification, or information indicating Sirhan's identity was obtained from the examination of Sirhan's person.

(from page 9) diary - notebook found on the top of Sirhan's dresser, which Mr. Laurence Sloan, employed in the District Attorney's Office as specialist in handwriting and questioned documents, identified as having been written by Sirhan. These pages read in part as follows: "May 18, 9:45 a.m./68 - My determination to eliminate R.F.K. is becoming more and more of an unshakeable obsession... R.F.K. must die...R.F.K. must be killed...Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June 68..."

Other quotes taken from these pages were the following: "Ambassador Golberg must die"..."Ambassador Goldberg must be eliminated...Sirhan is and Arab" "Kennedy must fall (underlined), Kennedy must fall...Senator R. Kennedy must be sacrificed for the cause of the poor exploited people..."

(from page 10) (taken from glove compartment of Sirhan's car) a wallet containing among other things, current membership card in Sirhan's name in the Ancient Mystical Order of Rosacrucian, as well as other cards identifying Sirhan by name and address

Evidence introduced at trial established that at 8:00 a.m. Police Department arrived at the Sirhan residence, having been assigned to security at the rear of the residence to guard the premises from unauthorized persons. At approximately 11:00 a.m., upon discarding a paper cup of coffee into the trash which lay inside several boxes and cans of trash on the Sirhan property, he observed an envelope which bore on its face the return address of the Argonaut Insurance Company. Mr. Laurence Sloan, handwriting specialist of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, testified that the writing on the back of the envelope was that of Sirhan. The following words, repeated several times, were written on the reverse side of the envelope, which had been put in evidence by the prosecution: "R.F.K. must be...disposed of properly. Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy must soon die."

Other trial evidence introduced was testimony of Mr. and Mrs. John Weidner, the owners of a health food store in Pasadena, who had employed Sirhan as a box boy and delivery boy. The weidners had discussions with Sirhan on the subject of politics in which Sirhan asserted that violence was the only means by which American Negroes would achieve their goals, and that the state of Israel had taken his home, and that the Jewish people were on top and directing the events in America. When Sirhan stated to the Weidners that there was more freedom in Russia and China than America, Mr. Weidner had inquired, "Why don't you go there yourself?" Sirhan replied, "Maybe one day I will go."

(from page 11) Sirhan stated at trial that he "read everything about the Arab-Israeli situation that he could lay his hands on," including publications from the Arab information center in the United States and a book on Zionist influence on U.S. policy in the Middle East.

One book read by Sirhan, entitled Cyclomancy(underlined), was described by Sirhan as follows: "The basis of what he says is you can do anything with your mind if you know how"..."how you can install a thought in your mind and how you can have it work and becom reality if you want it to." One Rosicrucian article read by Sirhan taught him that if he wrote something down, he would accomplish his goal. Sirhan testified that he had recorded various things in his notebook "with the objective in mind of accomplishing his goals...and in reference to that, the assassination of Robert Kennedy."

(from page 12) At trial, Sirhan admitted writing on May 18, 1968, that his "determination to eliminate R.F.K. is becoming more the more of an unshakeable obsession...(and that he could have written this at the time Senator Kennedy had said he would send 50 planes to Israel.

During the two weeks prior to the assassination, .... After finishing his several hours of shooting at the gun range, Sirhan had dinner at a Pasadena restaurant and observed a newspaper ad which read, "Join in the miracle mile march, for Israel." Sirhan testified that "this advertisement brought him back to the six days in June of the previous year, and that the fire started burning inside of him as a result of the ad."

When Sirhan saw a sign for United States Senator Kuchel's Headquarters, he dropped by and was told that a large party for Senator Kuchel was going on at the Ambassador Hotel. When Sirhan walked toward the hotel, with his gun still in the automobile, he observed a large sign concerning some Jewish organization and Sirhan testified that this "boiled him up again."

(from page 13) Out of the presence of the jury, Sirhan screamed to the trial court "I killed Robert Kennedy willfully, premeditatively, with 20 years of malice aforethought." Additionally, Sirhan stated, "I'm willing to fight for (the Arab cause)...I'm willing to die for it."

In front of the jury, on re-direct examination, Sirhan explained the circumstances under which he had declared that he had killed Senator Kennedy with malice aforethought. He had stated that at the time, outside the presence of the jury, had informed the court, "I at this time, Sir, withdraw my original plea of not guilty and submit the ple of guilty as charged on all counts. I also request that my counsel disassociate themselves from this case completely." Sirhan stated in front of the jury that he was "boiling" at this time. And when the trial court asked him "alright, and what do you want to do about the penalty," Sirhan had responded, again outside the presence of the jury, "I will offer no defense whatsoever...I will ask to be executed, Sir." The trial court had refused to accept the plea and had ordered the trial to proceed, finding Sirhan incapable of representing himself. Thereafter, Sirhan's mother and Mr. Nakhleh, a Palestinian Arab attorney serving as a defense advisor, had spoken with Sirhan and had given him advice. Sirhan had agreed to proceed with the trial represented by his counsel, once they agreed not to call the two girls as witnesses.

(from page 17) (Summary of Trial Evidence) It is clear from the record that there was abundant evidence of premeditation and deliberation of first degree murder. Sirhan had purchased the murder weapon almost six months prior to the assassination that Sirhan was "planning on shooting that son-of-a-bitch Senator Kennedy", and Sirhan's stalking of Kennedy, all reflected by Sirhan's own testimony added substance to this conclusion. Additionally, Sirhan's trip to the shooting range, his visit to the Ambassador Hotel two days prior to the assassination, and his conduct immediately prior to the assassination, including his asking of questions relative to Senator Kennedy's intended route and security protection, including his statements after the assassination that he could "explain" and committed his act "for my country," and his possession on his person of clippings relative to Senator Kennedy and the Senator's favorable position towards Israel, all added to evidence of premeditated murder. Finally, in front of the jury, Sirhan admitted that during a courtroom outburst while the jury was absent, he had stated, "I killed Robert Kennedy willfully, premeditatedly, and with 20 years of malice aforethought."

Emobiles 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The article found in Sirhan's pocket revealing Kennedy's preference towards arms sales to Israel was from the Pasadena Independent Star News dated May 26, 1968 but Sirhan was quoted from his diary of May 18th. expressing his desire to kill Kennedy for his arms support for Israel. How did Sirhan know before the press made it public, Kennedy's preference?

http://crimemagazine.com/

Page discusses conspiracy theories more than Actual Assassination

This page is in danger of turning into the "Robert F. Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories" page. I'm not against these alternative theories being on the page, as they are thought-inspiring, but they overwhelm the basic function of the page, which is to present the facts about RFK's assassination. The "official" story of the shooting is almost sidelined by all the paragraphs devoted to convincing the reader that the official recorded facts are unreliable.

Additionally, almost all the links are to "Alternate Theories" of dubious reliability.

Again, I don't mind these theories being on the page, but ought they not to be balanced with more facts from the "official" version? Woodson 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, more links to eyewitness testimony, and the presented facts of the case, would at least better represent what is claimed to have happened, so that readers can better separate the official story from the conspiracy/"second-man"/Manchurian Candidate assertions. Woodson 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Autopsy

Sirhan's gun was placed by all witnesses at between 2 and 5 feet from the Senator when he fired his revolver. [8] All witnesses seemed to agree Sirhan was facing Kennedy when he fired.

In conducting the autopsy on Kennedy, Los Angeles coroner Dr. Thomas Noguchi found powder stippling on Kennedy's ear and gunpowder residue (including soot) in his hair. Noguchi said this indicated that Kennedy was shot from a distance of, at most, 1.5 inches (37 millimeters.) (When a firearm is discharged, the soot component of the gunpowder residue travels only a few inches because the material is very light.) Noguchi and fellow investigators confirmed autopsy impressions by experimental test firings conducted at the Police Academy shooting range. Noguchi's conclusions led to speculation that Sirhan was too far from Kennedy and in the wrong position to have administered the fatal shot (also fired from a .22 caliber handgun, one which had apparently been fired into Kennedy's head at point-blank range from behind his right ear) and that a second shooter must have been present. Dr. Noguchi wrote years later that:

“ Until more is precisely known…the existence of a second gunman remains a possibility. Thus, I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy. ” — Dr. Noguchi [9][10]

Independent testing (shown in a 2004 "Unsolved History" series program on the Discovery Channel) indicates that gunpowder residue from a similar weapon and similar ammunition can easily travel over 15 inches (38 cm), but that the stippling effect observed requires that the muzzle of the gun must have been less than 2 inches (5 cm) away. 159.71.254.248 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In need of a major clean up:

Looking at the assassinations of both JFK and RFK I came on this article and must say it is in need of serious clean up. The Legacy section has a insane and I might had inane amount of citation needed notes peppered through out it. The idea that one needs a citation on things like the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King and the violence at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago is on par with needing a citation to the statement the sky is blue. Time to use a little restraint and some common sense.--BruceGrubb 12:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight

There is a lot of undue weight accorded to conspiracy theories in this article, and the extremely dubious program Conspiracy Test is not a great source for a huge section. The conspiracy theory stuff, and in particular the stuff from that program, needs to be pruned considerably. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It would now appear that the only thing "extremely dubious" here are the above unfortunate comments made by an obviously less than objective Wiki reader, unduly weighted down by personal agenda. For, as it now turns out, the results of Philip Van Praag's analysis of the Pruszynski recording, reported in the excellent Discovery Times Channel program, "Conspiracy Test: The RFK Assassination", have just been formally submitted for peer review to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the world's most prestigious forensic science organization and hardly, in any sense of the word, "dubious". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.97.232 (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The American Academy of Forensics science has not validated Van Praag's work in any way whatsoever. They invited him to make a presentation. It is a lie to imply they have endorsed his work.

MR. AYTON, YOUR LONG-ESTABLISHED EFFORTS TO PROMOTE YOURSELF ARE DULY NOTED. BUT YOUR RED HERRING ABOVE IS PATHETIC. THE ONLY THING THAT HAS BEEN STATED ON THIS PAGE ABOVE, AS YOU WELL KNOW, IS THAT VAN PRAAG'S WORK HAS BEEN FORMALLY SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW BY THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCES. THAT'S ALL THAT HAS BEEN STATED OR IMPLIED (DESPITE YOUR EFFORTS HERE TO TRY TO SUGGEST THAT ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT HAS BEEN STATED OR IMPLIED). PLEASE TRY TO BE FACTUAL FOR ONCE.

In fact there is little chance they will endorse his work because of the following information - http://hnn.us/articles/44466.html

The documentary challenged the Pruszynski Tape acoustics research carried out by two teams of experts -- Philip Harrison and Professor Peter French of J P French Associates in the UK and Steve Barber, Dr Chad Zimmerman and Michael O’Dell in the US -- for Mel Ayton. Note - Van Praag was an 'audio engineer' Harrison is an acoustics expert.These are two very different fields of science.

From the acosutics article "J P French Associates is the United Kingdom’s longest established independent forensic speech and acoustics laboratory. The company prepares reports for the defense and prosecution in criminal cases on speaker identification, transcription, authentication and enhancement of recordings, acoustic investigation, and other related areas, including the analysis of recorded gun shots, and is regularly involved in some of the most important and high profile cases in the United Kingdom and around the world."

"Philip Harrison has worked on over one thousand such cases. Harrison analyzed the Pruszynski Tape using three different methods, both independently and simultaneously. These involved (1) listening analytically to the recording via high quality headphones, (2) examining visual representations of the recording’s waveform (oscillographic displays), and (3) analyzing spectrograms (plots of sound energy across frequency over time), all using specialized computer software. Harrison’s findings were confirmed by Professor Peter French, a colleague and lecturer in forensic speech and audio analysis at the University of York. They found no more than 8 shots were present on the recording." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.53.89 (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Full of Errors

Conspiracy theories are one thing, but having honest intellectual debate about this subject is another. This page tends to give too much credence to conspiracy and not enough to actual facts. At one point, the athor says that, "there is no record of RFK supporting Israel during that period." In fact, there is evidence to RFK's support of Israel. When Sirhan Sirhan was processed, two newspaper clippings were found in his pocket. One of them was from the Pasadena Independent Star News, dated June 2. There is also much reason to believe that Sirhan Sirhan wanted RFK to die. The best evidence of this fact can be found on a page in Sirhan's notebook. He writes, "RFK must die- RFK must be killed. Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated... Robert F. Kennedy must assassinated before 5 June 68." The whole page is dedicated to this mantra. Author Dan E Moldea concludes his book The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy with a story related to him by author Michael McCowan, which goes as follows:

Suddenly, in the midst of their conversation, Sirhan started to explain the moment when his eyes met Kennedy's just before he shot him. Shocked by what Sirhan had just admitted, McCowan asked,'Then why, Sirhan, didn't you shoot him between the eyes?' With no hesitation and no apparent remorse, Sirhan replied,'Because that son of a bitch turned his head at the last second.'

If this appaling admission isn't enough to convict Sirhan, then I don't know what will. To admit conspiracy is to absolve Sirhan of his crime of murdering an important individual that had the potential to alter the course of American history. This page ought to be dedicated to upholding the facts and conclusions that place blame on the guily party and give the proper respect to the slain Kennedy. Dissent is cool 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Dissent Is Cool

2) As to the "RFK must die" journal entry, there have been a number of handwriting experts who have claimed that the handwriting for this entry does NOT match Sirhan's handwriting for any other entries in that journal. Plus the question of why Sirhan, who only had a grade school education, would have used English phrases like "unshakeable obsession". These issues should be discussed further.

And, while RFK may have been a supporter of Israel, so was EVERY OTHER Democratic candidate, as was the Democratic incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, AND all the Republican candidates of that year. The only serious 1968 presidential candidate who could accurately have been described as "anti-Israel" was segregationist third-party candidate George Wallace(the candidate, for whatever it may be worth, that Thane Cesar later admitted to supporting).

Therefore, there was nothing in RFK's position on Israel that would have marked him for death in Sirhan's eyes any more than any other major party candidate of that year.

And the one thing that opponents of the idea of a conspiracy to shoot RFK STILL have never adequately addressed is the finding of Dr. Noguchi in his autopsy of RFK that the fatal shot was fired from behind, at an upward "nearly verticle" angle and at point-blank range. Sirhan was NEVER in position to have fired this shot. Sirhan was in position, however, to have inflicted the non-fatal wounds suffered by the other shooting victims that evening. Ken Burch 11:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Ken Burch

I agree with the above poster.Who edits this garbage? Entries for this subject must rank as one of the most biased and undersourced I have ever read.You quote me in part but ignore my research about Shane O'Sullivan's ridiculous RKK/CIA allegations and Steve Barber's article about the acoustics evidence which is challenges everything about the new Discovery Times documentary - see below -

[4]

You omit so much it is difficult to know where to start - perhaps here - where you will find further books and information which challenge your conspiracy-minded editor:

http://hnn.us/articles/32193.html

http://hnn.us/articles/38496.html

http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Terrorist-Sirhan-Assassination-Kennedy/dp/1597970794/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6339153-5263333?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181750129&sr=8-1

Most of this page is unreferenced nonsense Mindstar (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pruszynski/Page Full of Errors

The Pruszynski Recording should absolutely have ITS OWN PAGE as well as a section in this article. Also, I suggest that the individual(s) who are the main contrib to this page strongly heed the urgings of the person who created the Page Full Of Errors section...an article like this is best served by sticking to those facts which are most indisputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.197.204 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Major revamp

In an effort to satisfy policy, I have been editing this article extensively. I hope to conclude it over the next few hours. The last edit was a structiral one, so I'm explaining here what it is that has happened

- The fringe theory elements need to be reduced/neutralised per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, they are huge! So to make the job easier, I have offloaded the offending content to my userspace, allowing me to rewrite it from scratch whilst tabbing between it carefully. Do not panic, I haven;'t just gon emad and ripped out half the article for no reason - but it will be substantially smaller as it returns.

- Restructuring the headings. The article is about the assassination. Therefore it needs more substantial material on the perpetrator than it currently has.

I also expect to add more third-level headings to break sections up, and to reduce the size of the media section. This will all take some time because the article is largely unreferenced, and that means a lot of searching to be done. I suspect there will be citation needed tags at the end however. I will report back the remaining work once I remove the {{inuse}} tag. As I will be saving often, feel free to drop a line to my talk page, as I'll see the new messages rapidly Fritzpoll (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Last few references needed...

In the "Aftermath and legacy" section, I have added 3 {{fact}} tags because the article is attributing an opinion to individuals, and we should provide sources to back this up. I tagged these in the process of expanding this section. Once these references are in place, I plan to send the article up to peer review where we can get a wider community comment about the material. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Compson1 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC) See wikipedia entry on "Lying in State." In the US, bodies lie in state only in the Capitol in Washington. The source commits a common error, but to be precise, Kennedy's body lay in repose in St. Patrick's.

Thanks for pointing that out - I will correct that if it hasn't already been done. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

paperless archives

I'm not sure I understand why you can't link to this url? Is it some technical problem? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is blacklisted as spam. I posted a request to have it delisted, but it was overturned as having been added by someone at the Foundation in 2004. No other rationale was given. It will take a long time to find a replacement, as I'll have to go through all the files at the Mary Ferrell Foundation (external link at the bottom) to find the right document. And there are a *lot* of them!! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. The one time I ran into a problem like that I had better luck. Commiserations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1968 election

Compson1 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) The explanation given doesn't really follow. Most states selected delegates at state conventions, rather than in primaries. In the absence of historical context, though, it doesn't follow that Kennedy was unlikely to win, since he could have received support from those delegates chosen at state conventions. The procedure means merely that Kennedy's primary wins did not assure him of the nomination. In fact, it's very unlikely that he would have been nominated, though this point is debated. The delegates chosen at state conventions were party regulars largely loyal to President Lyndon Johnson, who hated Kennedy and viewed Kennedy's criticism of the Vietnam War as a personal affront. Many of them were already committed to Humphrey, either publicly or privately. (The fight for delegates is explained on the second page of this article, published a week before Kennedy's assassination: "In the 'New' Politics".) Humphrey had a huge lead in delegates, and after California, there were no more primaries, so Kennedy's popular support wouldn't translate into delegates.

The explanation is based on the source cited, the author's contention being that the process essentially relied on an "undemocratic" process meaning that Kennedy was unlikely to win as a result. The irony, I suppose, being that Humphrey could win without taking part in primary elections. All I did was try to summarise the source - if you feel it is inadequate, or needs expanding (you clearly have a good source there) you don't need my permission to do it! I would enjoy reading more in this section :) Fritzpoll (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Compson1 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)I don't think Beschloss means quite what you've written, but I'll try to add something this weekend.

It is quite feasibly a failure in my summarising skills - i.e. that I understand it but for some reason haven't expressed it coherently - I would welcome a correction. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Revamp complete

A lot of editing has now taken place, and I have removed the various maintenance tags that I added late yesterday. There are some edits that I shall explain quickly to preempt any questions! Firstly, the editing philosophy I applied was that the contents of the article should have relevance to the subject. Thus, a detailed exposition of the actions of individual members of the press and media was not necessary (it was also unreferenced) for example, and I have left it some more poignant facts.

The compression and elimination of the conspiracy theories is doubtless my most contentious edit. However, referring to WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, I feel justified in redressing the balance. I included those theories that were best sourced and most widely held, improved on the references, and then balanced the subsections with evidence supporting the majority position. This is in accordance with my interpretation of policy. One item that I couldn't source was the polka-dot dress girl - well, at least not from sources satisfying WP:RS. However, with my original sub-title of "Contentions relating to actions of officials", a 'short mention of this would be ok - I just couldn't get the sources together.

Outstanding issues for the article: A section entitled "Aftermath and legacy" - what impact did the assassination have? This can include the election, but with this alone, the section looks rather slim and I'm not sure I'm qualified to assess a wider social impact from his death. Nonetheless, I will look into it if a significant amount of time passes.

Any comments, please drop by my talk page. Best wishes and happy editing Fritzpoll (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Compson1 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Polka-dot dress woman is discussed at length in Moldea's book, the best single source on the assassination.

Multiple sources are preferable, and I don't have a copy to hand. Please include if you can Fritzpoll (talk)

Compson1 (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The two legitimate issues that have been raised by conspiracy theorists (and I write as someone completely confident that Sirhan acted alone) are the distance between the muzzle of Sirhan's gun and Kennedy's head (all eyewitnesses put the gun farther away from Kennedy's head than the autopsy report concluded the fatal shot had been fired) and the holes in the bystanders and walls suggesting more than eight bullets were fired. We now have no discussion of those issues but instead have discussion of CIA involvement, which is surely a fringe theory. As far as I know, this article was the only source anywhere providing details of TV coverage of the event, written based on original source documents--recordings of the coverage held by private collectors. Any errors were corrected by other collectors. We're now limited primarily to information provided in a Time magazine article written under deadline the week of the shooting.

The television coverage was unsourced, and accordingly, I removed material for which I could find no source per WP:V. The policy on reliable sources] applies, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and requires verification. There were no cited sources, and the TIME article gives good coverage of the event, so the article was by no means the only source. The point is that much of that blow-by-blow account was not relevant to the subject of the article. The distance issues are covered in the second gunman section, with reference to the autopsy and subsequent FBI investigations per the 1975 court orders, albeit not with reference to the multiple bullet holes. Although these were covered in the cited FBI documents, I didn't feel they constituted a balanced view, since proponents of second gunman theories would argue a vested interest problem.

My problem last night was finding sources to validate arguments. Moldea's book continues to be cited, but I couldn't find further verifying sources to include anything substantial on the topic. In order to meet policy, and to make the article readable/useful I had to wipe out vast swathes of unsourceable or unnecessary material. I am happy for people to add in well-sourced, balanced and reasonably succinct prose relating to other issues, because these will probably conform with policy (provided they satisfy WP:FRINGE. The CIA involvement theory was widely publicised in the popular press, the serious press and by the UK's public broadcaster. This entire section consists of fringe theories, so it was really a case of finding those that were verifiable! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Compson1 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) When Cesar drew his gun: The source cited in note 26 doesn't support the text. Cesar himself gave conflicting accounts of when he drew his gun but told police it was when he first heard shots. The editor may be confusing Cesar with security guard Jack Merritt, who entered the pantry with his gun drawn after the shooting stopped.

Possibly. I think I inadvertently undid your initial edit trying to undo vandalism by another editor. Apologies for this. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

At last, the crazies have been defeated and this page looks moe or less respectable. As someone who fought a lengthy edit war with some over this page last year, I congratulate you! Mindstar (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"perpetrator" vs. "man convicted of"

This has been played around with several times over the past 24hours. Let's talk about it here, and come up with some compromise wording. Sirhan is correctly, in my opinion, described as the perpetrator. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, we want to acknowledge the majority view, which is that Sirhan committed the crime. On the other hand, I accept the criticism of the element relating to the Israel connection, since, althought the sources are highly suggestive, they are not emphatic on this point. Would it be acceptable simply to remove the final clause relating to Israel? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination: Extent of coverage of alternative theories

Following extensive rewrite, alternative theories have been limited and an attempt at balance made. Need to know if coverage is sufficient, and satsifes WP:FRINGE as well as other policies Fritzpoll (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point made about TV coverage, but Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, but requires verifable sources. So there are some alternative theories that may be difficult to cover.Doug Weller (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerned about WP:NPOV#Undue regarding the weight some editors wish to give to conspiracy theories. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied the below from a discussion on Durova's talk page:

Hi Durova. I massively reduced the content of the conspiracy theories section during my rewrite the other day, and attempted to included sources to balance these sections back to the majority viewpoint. Can I just clarify: do you think there is a problem with the section as it stands, or are you just concerned that there is a tendency for this section to become massively full of wild fringe theories? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what percentage of the leading experts suppose that alternative theories hold water? Right now the space in the article is about evenly split between conventional and alternative. Unless this is really an open debate with no firm expert consensus, which I doubt is the case, then per WP:UNDUE the alternative stuff is still getting way too much weight. Durova^Charge! 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think what is actually lacking is sufficient content about the event itself. I will reduce the content again in the CIA involvement section, since yours is essentially the second concern I've seen, but ultimately, more information in the Event section or in the perpetrator section will probably balance this article out. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a major problem with the Pruszynski mention.
"More recently, analysis of a single audio recording of the gunshots made by freelance reporter Stanislaw Pruszynski appear, according to forensic expert Philip Van Praag, to indicate thirteen shots being fired, while Sirhan's gun only held eight bullets.[34] While this would be highly supportive of a second gunman, other independent analysis by some other experts indicates that there are only eight shots present on the tape.[38]"
Firstly calling it a "single audio recording" immediately implies other recordings don't support it. Then it goes on to imply Van Praag was the only expert to claim 13 shots. Next, the "independent analysis by some other experts" turns out to be a single expert who admitted he worked from inferior copies. The majority expert view actually supports Van Praag's "fringe theory" but that is not reflected in the mention. Obviously the Pruszynski tape analysis should have it's own page and only a summary needs be here but the current wording doesn't even pretend to be nuetral. Wayne (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you propose an alternative, or even edit yourself, provided you can supply relevant sources? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources are already there. [34] already covers what I explained and includes detailed mention of why the opposing source at ref [38] should not be given undue weight. I'd have to think of an alternative that doesn't take up too much space. Another point I notice has no mention, is the autopsy results finding that the head shot was fired from several inches. As no witness puts Sirhan closer than several feet this is relevant in the second gunman section. Reliable sources find this of interest so it should be in the article. The fact that fringe theories are being given increased credibility by the mainstream media should be given due weight. Currently the article has reduced the weight to the extent that it implies there is no mainstream support at all for them. I'd even argue that coverage of fringe theories should be expanded a little until such time as they have their own article as anyone reading the page would assume there is no real controversy. Wayne (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The proportion of space devoted to any given interpretation should be in keeping with the proportion of recognized experts who adhere to it. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you either provide information regarding how we are to arrive at the proportion of recognized experts who adhere to either side of the debate about this crime, or criteria which would allow us to determine who is an expert?71.237.161.49 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the criteria Jimbo Wales gave at WP:UNDUE - most comonly accepted references say that this is the way it happened, with a significant minority adhering o the alternative theories listed Fritzpoll (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree with Durova. The overwhelming mainstream opinion is that Kennedy was assassinated by Sirhan. As such, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (particularly WP:Fringe theories and WP:WEIGHT) indicate that conspiracy theories, held by a minority must not be given undue weight in an article. In fact, the relevant sentence is "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. I believe that this balance has been achieved, although the consequences of the assassination (the "Aftermath") have yet to be adequately described to present balance. The fact that there is a section on fringe theories in this article would be indicative to any reader that such theories exist. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again I'd ask what the basis for the conclusion that mainstream opinion is that Sirhan was guilty? There have been multiple reports from mainstream sources bringing forth new evidence that seems to dispute this conclusion.71.237.161.49 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Found guilty in a court of law with multiple appeal rejections and no plausible alternative explanation that isn't shot full of holes. This seems extensive enough Fritzpoll (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry Teeter, Sirhan's lawyer, asked for recusal from several judges due to their bias against his case, so there is at least counter explanations that should be considered when speaking of the rejections of these appeals. As to whether or not the alternative theories are shot full of holes is certainly an open question when there are eyewitnesses, some of whom were wounded, who after 40 years still hold that there was more than one shooter.71.237.161.49 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with giving fringe theories due weight but currently they are given almost no weight by ommission. Another point is that while the majority view is that Sirhan shot Kennedy it is also the majority view of the experts who have examined the tapes and evidence that although Sirhan did indeed shoot Kennedy there was probably a second gunman. It is only the theories around Sirhans involvement that are fringe and not the second gunman theory itself because there is evidence accepted by reliable sources that supports the possibility. Wayne (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But if we accept that the majority viewpoint is that Sirhan shot Kennedy, isn't the fact that there might have been someone else discharging a gun irrelevant to the subject of Kennedy's assassination, in that it doesn't contradict the notion that Sirhan killed him? Plus other evidence mentioned on this talk page(and the archive) indicates a majority view of 4 UK experts vs. van Pragg and one other in the states that eight shots were fired so your assertion of a majority viewpoint in this area seems to be flawed? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that van Pragg is the only expert who came to the conclusion that there were more than 8 gunshots. Mel Ayton who is a supporter of the official story reported that three experts found that there were more than eight shots, whereas five experts found that there were eight shots. It is not a four to one ratio, but rather a five to three ratio, and further it appears that Mel Ayton's team of five were not working with the master tapes.71.237.161.49 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankheimer as driver

John Frankheimer did drive Kennedy and Fred Dutton to the Ambassador (Witcover, p. 254), but the fact seems too trivial to be included. Compson1 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Background section, "Robert Kennedy" is mentioned, but reading further, in the Assassination section, "Robert F. Kennedy" is written and it would be best that "Robert F. Kennedy" be mentioned first and then you can add "Robert Kennedy". I'm not an expert with "law terms", but shouldn't this sentence, in the Perpetrator section, ---> "The judge did not accept this confession and it was later withdrawn", be re-written a little better. In the Conspiracy theories, this sentence ---> "Some persons involved in the original investigation and some researchers have suggested alternative scenarios for the crime, or have argued that there are serious problems with the official case", it would be best to replace "persons" with "individuals".

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   It wouldn't hurt to link "New York" in the lead. In the Media coverage section, it wouldn't hurt to link ABC, CBS, and NBC. The dates need to be linked per here.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 27 cover ---> "One doctor slapped his face, calling, "Bob, Bob," while another began massaging Kennedy's heart"? In the CIA section, does Reference 48 cover all the third paragraph info?

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image:Robertkennedy.jpg appears to have be missing source information and that needs to be fixed. Changed to a free public domain image from the commons. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments - give us 24-48 hours (editors in multiple timezones) to get this sorted I'll let you know when we're there Fritzpoll (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, think we're finished. I added a new citation to complement 27 which has the same information that you were concerned was unreferenced. Source 48 doesn't cover all the third paragraph info, just the last line. The first part of the paragraph is covered within the film that it refers to. Do you want the film to be cited inline, even though it is explicitly attributed in the text? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It'd be best to add the film citation. Overall, the article looks well, just adding the film source makes the article be steps from it from becoming GA. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, after re-reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Section Should be Renamed

The term conspiracy theory is a prejorative. I renamed the section "Problems With the Official Account" but my edits were reverted. Also I tried to add a recent quote from John Pilger indicating he witnessed the shooting and was certain there was a second gunman, but this addition was deleted before I could clean it up. Is there a bot monitoring this particular entry or what?71.237.161.49 (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The problems with what you are tring to add are to do with trying to present the majority view within the article. The conspiracy theory material is therefore limited in size compared to the account accepted by the overwhelming majority of people Fritzpoll (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that Wikipedia aimed at accuracy. Is this not the case? Also could you cite polls or any other source to verify that the majority of the public hold the official view? Finally it seems that many mainstream news organizations have been presenting information that questions the official version lately, specifically regarding the possibility of a second gunman. If I cite mainstream sources and am careful not to overstate will my edits hold? Finally why should the section about problems in the official account be labeled with a prejorative?71.237.161.49 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I could easily ask you to provide me a 'poll' or 'survey' that proves that the public think something fishy happened. And yet, it wouldn't matter. The majority of reliable source (per the guidelines at WP:RS). As to other mainstream organisations questioning the official view, it probably depends on context. If multiple news outlets decide to go nuts and all start talking about one lone individual's theory that Kennedy was actually assainated by an orangutang, then this probably shouldn't be included. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't simply go for accuracy, it also seeks a neutral point of view whilst not lending too much credence to viewpoints that do not conform to the mainstream view. a month ago, this article was four times the size, and over two-thirds of it was conspiracy theory - this must not happen again. To be honest, your title "Problems with the official account" is equally bad - it assumes that these are actually problems, whilst the text within it balances conspiracy with counterpoints. Personally, I prefer "Alternative theories", but this was changed a few days ago. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a published study confirming that the majority of reliable sources per Wiki guidelines conclude that the official story is verified? Or is this just an assertion too? Isn't it better to address one source at a time rather than make claims about the totality of available sources?71.237.161.49 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make the claim about what the majority POV was, you did. If the majority of news organizations reported this orangutang theory wouldn't it become the majority view? I guess the better approach to just deciding what is crazy and what is not is to examine the evidence. All I'm trying to do is cite a few bits of evidence that have recently been reported by major news organizations. Again, if I can cite reliable sources and am careful will my edits hold? I'm unclear why my title "Problems with the official account" is a bad choice when the second line of the section reads: "Some individuals involved in the original investigation and some researchers have suggested alternative scenarios for the crime, or have argued that there are serious PROBLEMS WITH THE OFFICIAL CASE."71.237.161.49 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How about we compromise on the title back to "Alternative theories", which is certainly less prejorative? This is certainly my preference. You can add what you like, but just be aware that this article is now widely watchlisted - your additions may be reverted by other editors. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Alternative theories is less prejorative and acceptable.71.237.161.49 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. As to your insistence on including more alternative theories, I point you to the policies that I have already linked to. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by polls, and this is the current consensus - I didn't revert your edit earlier, so I don't know what it contained. What are you trying to say? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to hash out whatever additions I have the time to make through discussion. My earlier edit was sloppy as I'm not as familiar with wiki edit tags as I ought be, and while I was trying to correct the edit was reverted. I'll be more careful on that front in the future.71.237.161.49 (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Fritzpoll. Durova^Charge! 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream opinion may be divided

CNN international, NBC news, ABC News, the BBC, and many other television news programs and newspapers have recently reported on evidence indicating there was more than one gunman, that the forensic evidence was tampered with before Sirhan's trial, and other reasons to hold a position of skepticism about the official story. I would say that recently the majority view has shifted from a total rejection of alternative theories towards a position of doubt about the official story. This does not mean that any particular narrative or explanation of a conspiracy is held by the majority, however there is certainly an openness amongst mainstream opinion to consider new evidence. The same could not be said about Flat Earth theories. It strikes me that Jimbo Wales' correct assessment that wikipedia should be weighted towards mainstream rather than fringe opinion simply doesn't apply when it comes to the new evidence being reported by mainstream journalists regarding this case.71.237.161.49 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The recency of he reporting means that we cannot possibly assess that this has become the mainstream viewpoint. News reporting is not sufficient to indicate a shift of opinion - I think we'd be looking towards being able to look in a typical reference (news is not a typical reference for a history) and see that these doubts exist. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as a bit of a catch 22. Would peer reviewed scientific papers be adequate sources to shift Wiki's perspective on what constitutes the majority view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.126.114 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This Article Ignores Hard Evidence Presented in the "RFK Must Die" documentary

The "RFK Must Die" documentary presents compelling evidence that CIA officers opposed to Kennedy were present at the Ambassador Hotel during his assassination and probably participated in it.

The documentary presents indisputable evidence that members of LAPD with ties to the CIA actively engaged in covering up certain material facts when they conducted their investigation. The facts that they actively engaged in covering up plainly indicated the participation of other individuals in the assassination, individuals who were present when the assassination took place, and the existence of a conspiracy.

Neither of the preceding facts is mentioned in your article. In fact, the article represses the clear implications of the "RFK Must Die" documentary.

In addition, this Wikipedia article is highly misleading in its statement that the "RFK Must Die" film somehow reveals that the individual identified as a CIA operative was "in fact" a Bulova watch executive. The article gives the impression that the film reverses its own analysis here, when, in fact, it shows that Bulova was a long-standing CIA-run company, and directly states that these Bulova watch "executives" may very well have been the second or straight identities of the CIA operatives identified in the film--a highly plausible inference in light of the documented proof of CIA involvement in running Bulova.

Finally, while this article dismisses the audiotape analysis presented in the film, which concludes that more than 8 shots were fired (which would by necessity prove the existence of a second gunman), it does not mention the concrete visual evidence, evidence in the LAPD record, and other testimony which plainly show that additional bullets (i.e., more than 8 bullets) were recovered from the crime scene, and that this fact was omitted from the official report.

The article's treatment of the evidence presented in "RFK Must Die" is inadequate and, according to all appearances, at least somewhat biased.

Gegollrad (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there - thanks for the concerns. There are a couple of points here: The article has to have a neutral point of view - the contents of the RFK Must Die documentary have been dissected by the maker of the documentary himself and those are the "dismissals" that you refer to. The article does not attempt to dismiss sources, since that would make the article opinionated. Instead it is balanced out by counter-opinions. Furthermore, there would be an issue in including much more information on these conspiracy theories per our ediorial policy on such matters. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Perhaps add a link to the JFK assassination article in the first sentence?

  Difficult to do without removing the wikilink for his brother...

• President of the United States is wlinked to twice in the first two sentences.  Done
• Should he be referred to as Robert or Robert F.? (Start of Background section)  Done
• Internet references need access dates (and any other available information)
• "who had won the 1964 election with a landslide of the popular vote" - is this relevant?  Done removed
• Ref 3 needs a publisher  Done - added publisher = White House
• "President on March 16, 1968" - if you're going to wlink dates (not compulsory), make sure you link all of them  Done
• Is ref 13 (http://www.moldea.com/rfk.html) a reliable source?

  It is, because it's an excerpt from the book that is used throughout the article, but I don't have a copy to hand.

  That could be a copyvio issue; do they have permission to publish the book there? If yes, that's fine; if no, use {{cite book}} without URL (but use that source for yourself anyway). —Giggy 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest you use the iconic image in the article; fair use could easily be rationalised.

  I'll see what I can dig up

  Update:  Done with a different image

• TIME (the magazine) should have italics (per MOS:ITALICS) (Check refs as well as article text) (and check consistent capitalisation)  Done
• Ref 33; is Cincy Post a newspaper or something?  Done - fixed
• "Sirhan's lawyers attempted to use a defense of diminished responsibility" - for the unassociated; what's that?

  Wikilinked it - is that ok?

  Yep. —Giggy 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)  Done

• "into the kitchen where he had been shot[16]..." - does that ref not cover the rest of the sentence?  Done moved
• What makes http://hearitnow.umd.edu/1968.htm a reliable source?  Done by highlighting actual source
• I think documentary titles (RFK Must Die) should be in italics.  Done
• What makes ref 49 reliable? (And it needs formatting.)
  • Nothing - gone and replaced  Done
• "During a reexamination of the case in 1975" - no need to wlink individual years  Done
• Ref 60 needs publisher  Done
• The Guardian needs italics (saw in ref 61; check others)  Done
• "political writer for the New York Times" - italics  Done
• Ref 7's URL formatting is weird.

  Because the link gets kicked out by the spam filter. I guess I need to find an alternative means of referencing the police file?

  Oh, I thought admins bypass spam filter. I'm not sure what to do in this case... I'll look into it a bit more. —Giggy 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  FOund alternative source  Done

• Can you use the template at the bottom of Kennedy Curse?

  If JFK's assassination isn't in the template, I'd be loathe to include it here.  Not done

Yeah, that's about it - hope this helps. —Giggy 07:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs 42 and 43 at random glance need access dates. Check all web references. —Giggy 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation

In the U.S., unlike the U.K., commas and periods go inside quotation marks. (Semi-colons go outside.) I normally wouldn't point this out, but I thought you might want to know since you went to the trouble of altering what was standard American punctuation. Compson1 (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

What's a "steam table?" It's used twice in the assassination section, I'm trying to find a better descriptive word for it (or is that what the refs call it?) Anything I can pipelink it to or change it to? Thoughts? Keeper ǀ 76 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[5] is the only definition I could quickly find. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought it was. Subway restaurants have those, I know what they are now. I wish there was a better description, but meh, it is entirely secondary to the article's content. It's not like we're editing Catering or something.. :-) Thanks Fritz.

Also, I've just done a once thru on the article. If Gig has gone through the refs, etc (above), the prose is excellent. Clearly worded, NPOV, I did some mild CE-ing (about a dozen/two dozen changes). I think you should go for FA with it, being prepared of course for criticisms about lack of pictures. I sure wish there were more to be found. Pix of the ambassador hotel, RFK "in action" (like shaking hands with someone), would be ideal. Pix from the funeral would be terrific additions as well. Not sure what's out there for "free", though. Article looks/reads fantastic. I remember where this article used to be fritz, and you should be extrememly proud of how far it has evolved. Earlier, it could have justifiably been deleted as a POV-fork or fringe article, now it is absolutely top-notch. Good work! Keeper ǀ 76 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keeper, for the compliment, but especially for the copy-edit. Collaboration is what we're all here for, isn't it. Malleus has left me some suggestions on his talkpage for an addition to the aftermath section which I'll chase up, and I have a couple of referencing issues to resolve, but then I'll go fill up on Captain Morgan's dark rum and nominate for FA. (quivers with fear given the definition) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

I find you Media coverage coverage section somewhat strange. The Time magazine article given as a reference says the shots were fired at 2:17 a.m. and that at 12:19 ABC broadcast "wobbly video tape" from the murder scene. The fact that it was in "black and white" made little difference as I did not know anyone with a color TV in those days anyway. Plus, after Martin Luther King, Jr. shortly before, the dawn of televised assassinations was just beginning. From my point of view, you fail to realise the impact of those "wobbly" video tapes had. Forget that it was in black and white. I was watching and that is not what went through my mind. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It more than two minutes after the shooting that ABC switched to the Ambassador. Kennedy had already been removed. ABC did switch to the Ambassador ahead of NBC and far ahead of CBS. Because ABC was using a smaller black and white camera, it was able to air live interviews from the pantry area itself. Ironically, though, it had no scenes of the pandemonium immediately after the shooting and no footage of Senator Kennedy. CBS and NBC both had footage, on color film, of the shooting's immediate aftermath.Compson1 (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. You are looking at it as if it happened today. When President Kennedy was shot, it wasn't on the TV two minutes later. We heard it over the radios half hour later, gathered in little groups around the few people who had transistor radios. For those of us learning about Robert Kennedy's shooting, the color vs. black and white thing was totally trivial as few people had color TVs then. It was shocking and some of the pandemonium was shown, or at least conveyed. You are not viewing it in the context of the meaning at the time. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My comments apparently were unclear. I noted that it was more than two minutes because the times you cited must be incorrect. I agree that the distinction between black and white and color to the viewer was not critical at the time (though you have understated it--all prime time programming and most other programming was in color in 1968, and by the end of the year, about a third of American homes had color TVs). The point I attempted to make was that although ABC had the advantage of a smaller camera and the ability to go the pantry area live, it had no footage of the wounded senator or the utter chaos in the pantry. CBS and NBC did, in color, but because it was color film, rather than video, they were not able to air it until a couple of hours later.Compson1 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What I was quoting regarding the two minute time frame was from the Time magazine link your article uses as a reference. I will also say that I lived in San Francisco at the time and didn't know anyone with color TV. Color TV wasn't an issue then. Maybe it is like HD TV now. I hardly know a person who cares about HD TV, but if you go by the media, it is a big deal. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but it needs to be in the article to explain why that time difference exists. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting A Gun In The Hand

The easiest thing in the world to effect a plausibly deniable attack is to put a gun in the hand of a nut, and enable access.

I've read of conspiracy theories (someplace--if only I had captured the reference!) that assert just that happened in this case. It would be good if some knowledgeable researcher could access such references and make brief reference to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.49.22 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian?

Well, at last I see a person being called a Palestinian. Didn't know Palestinia was a country. Or a religion. Or anything. But at last, overhere, the word seems to exists, albeit negative. White phosphor, anyone? -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the reverse of Godwin's law. This is probably contraversial considering the current "edit ninjas" on the current Gaza conflicts. 78.145.187.95 (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Palestinia isn't an officially recognized country (yet) the Palestinian people DO exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.50.17 (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely you've heard of Englishmen, Bavarians and Quebecquois in your time? All these people are legitimate ethnic groups whose names simply do not lend themselves to the name of a country or religion. As the poster above says, Palestinian people exist, just as an Englishman who lives in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland exists - but neither's name features in the name of the country they officially reside in. (Tom Black (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Alternative Shooter

The time has come for an article on Thane Eugene Cesar, long suspected as the alternative shooter. This article on the assassination might have included information about him, as well as information about the behavior of the Los Angeles Police Department, specifically their destruction of the evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.19.132 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See above comment by Fritzpoll. Keeper | 76 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy vs. alternative shooter

I know some will say this has been hashed out already, but having read through the archive, it seems to me that alternative theories to Sirhan Sirhan as the sole shooter have been labeled as "conspiracies," giving them less credence. It would not have to be a conspiracy for there to be a second shooter, unless you're referring to a conspiracy on the part of police and prosecutors to pin the murder on Sirhan and close the case. I have attended a presentation on the Pruzynski tape. I'm not advocating the presenters theory. However, their theory had enough plausibility that, to me, presenting Sirhan as the undisputed murderer is showing bias simply based on conventional wisdom. Both the theory that Sirhan shot RFK and the theory that another person ALSO shot RFK have validity, in my opinion, and so the article should describe Sirhan as "traditionally identified as the assassin" or "the person convicted of the assassination" or some other objective description rather than simply as "the perpetrator." The case is not closed from a historical perspective, and Wikipedia should not engage in taking sides.  ~ InkQuill  04:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is equivalent to an argument we have repeatedly had on this page, but it is fair enough that you raise it again. The point is that the majority opinion, as well as various courts of law at different times (thinking of the original trial and all the subsequent appeals) have identified Sirhan as the murderer/assassin. This means it is the majority viewpoint. Viewpoints that do not conform with this overwhelmingly accepted view are fringe views and so we accord them a balanced airing within the text according to the appropriate guidelines. The text makes clear that there are alternative theories for the assassination, so there is no bias, but as murderer (or assassin) are words assigned to an individual based on a legal concept, he may accurately be described as such within the text. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I still maintain that if a minority view is followed by a significant number of fair-minded people (not the legions of conspiracy theorist who see them under every chair), then we shouldn't describe something as accepted fact. Say it's the majority view, that courts and many theorists and historians have agreed, but make it clear that there are major dissenters with theories that have not been disproved. Calling alternative theories "fringe views" to is revealing bias, as "fringe theory" is a pejorative term. On that page, "Jimbo Wales" is quoted as saying, "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it." I don't believe this standard is upheld on this page, but rather the idea that another person could have shot RFK (perhaps in addition to Sirhan) is treated as one that reasonable people would not believe. The Pryzinski tape theory casts doubt on Sirhan in a much more serious way than, say conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination do, but this page appears to treat the two as equally "fringe."  ~ InkQuill  05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Unsolved History" on Discovery Channel says that Coroner Naguchi and FBI reports stated that

• none of the bullets found in RFK came from the gun used by Sirhan.
• that 12 bullets were fired in the room, whereas Sirhan's gun only held 8 bullets.
• RFK was shot 4 times from behind. Sirhan was in front of him at all times and only fired twice.
• One of the shots from behind left powder burns below RFK's ear, Naguchi says that means 3 inches firing range.

(Discovery tested this and could only get the same effect at 1 inch range). All of this stuff is not crazy 911 conspiracy stuff, this is all based upon official documents. So it deserves better than to be termed a "conspiracy theory" because theories are usually just that, and they have no scientific evidence to back it up. That 12 bullets were fired is enough alone to raise serious doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.60.182.81 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and these suggestions were subsequently investigated and found to be misleading by the FBI in subsequently published "official" documentation, which is cited within the text and available to read online. Note that the perjorative "conspiracy theory" is not used in the text, but instead they are labelled "alternative theories".

I really and truly wish Wikipedia wouldn't allow these garbage theories to be posted; it is simply irresponsible. There were numerous witnesses during the RFK killing, and there is NO evidence anybody other than Sirhan did it. All any section about the "theories" does is perpetuate lies.--22 February 2009 Susan Nunes

There are a bunch of confusing points of view that are difficult to bring together into one cohesive 'truth' about the killing. All those witnesses saw and heard something slightly different than each other. I think the responsible encyclopedia will talk about it. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead suggestions copied over from my talkpage

Copied from my talkpage - needs discussion here: Fritzpoll (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Fritzpoll- I saw your revert of my rewordingof the lead to the RFK assassination article. I wondered when I made the edit if there was guidance that called for an initial verbatim occurrence of the article title, but guessed on the side of not necessarily, and decided to make the first sentences a little smoother. In your edit summary, you mention "correct formatting," which prompted me to go poking around a bit for guidance. All I found was Wikipedia:Lead_section#Format_of_the_first_sentence, which allows for my take on that kind of article title. My principal motivation for making the edit in the first place was to get rid of the early second instance of Robert F. Kennedy, which jumped out at me as awkward. Do you think the article needs a verbatim repeat of the full title, and that the English read better before I changed it? -Eric ^talk 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just moved it back to the way that got the lead section through the FA process. I wouldn't say that the title is descriptive, so I would expect a bolding occurrence in the first sentence. The revert wasn't direct - I think it got caught up in a lot of vandalism reverts that day. The talk page for the assassination is quite well watched, for a variety of reasons, and I won't be around really for the next few weeks - feel free to take it up there. It isn't my article, but I think it is a change that might need some discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi- I will also be too busy for a while to give it much time. Do you think I should just copy this over to the article's talk page? -Eric ^talk 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Auto-reversion

Hi all, I added a section from Sirhan Sirhan's diary (as in Wikisource) that I thought was valuable because it showed that Sirhan Sirhan really had some serious mental illness. This is an issue that is hardly addressed in the article and having this firsthand proof couldn't hurt. However my edits were reverted as vandalism, and I can see why: they certainly do look like vandalism, coming as they do from the diary of a schizophrenic. "RFK must be assassinated assassinated assassinated assassinated" etc. I can only assume these reverts must be automatic, since a quick look at the Wikisource confirms that the text is legitimate; furthermore, my messages told me I should have included a justification (which I had done all three times). I'd appreciate if there was some attempt to check of the edits are legitimate, rather than just assuming that they are vandalism and labelling me "Perpetrator!" Thanks, an IP Number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.69.114 (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Autoreversion again

And just now I changed "1968" to "68" -- the form in which it appears in Sirhan's diary. The quotes indicate a direct quote, and the direct quote is 68, not 1968. It's OK to say 1968, but to put it in quotes is to be dishonest about the actual contents of the diary! 128.12.69.114 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct - I have restored your version, and warned the person who reverted you. Thanks for bringing this to the talkpage. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Howard Hughes

Why isn't Howard Hughes' involvement with Robert F. Kennedy's assassination mentioned? Even if this can only be considered a conspiracy theory, surely it is signficant enough to include on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.186.55 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sirhan Sirhan's religion

The article states "Sirhan Sirhan was a strongly anti-Zionist Muslim."

The two sources cited for at that line won't load for me.

I'm changing "Muslim" to "Christian." Everything I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia says he was from a Christian family.

The main article on Sirhan states, "Sirhan was born in Jerusalem to a Palestinian Christian family" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan#Personal_information). The article on RFK's assassination also says he was a Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy#Assassination).

If anyone can find any certifiable source that he was a Muslim, I'd like to see it (and I don't mean that in any kind of snarky way).

MiloD (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Woman in the polka-dot dress

Anyone else ever heard this? The Manchurian candidate theory. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not enough sources exist. I'm thinking of starting a new spin-out article on the conspiracy theories so that they can be discussed without overwhelming this article. Have a look at User:Fritzpoll/ConspiracyTheory/The_woman_in_the_polka-dot_dress for the existing material we had on this, and if you can dig out any sources, let me know. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

New article in need of some TLC and sourced expansion - unsourced information will be reverted on sight, but this is an outlet for sourced facts pertaining to the conspiracy theories surrounding this assassination Fritzpoll (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Scott Enyart - Film Seized and Lost/Stolen

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKenyartS.htm

Maybe I missed it - but I didn't see any mention of the film that was seized from Enyart - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Indira Gandhi assassination which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture of a dying RFK

The picture of Robert Kennedy after having been fatally wounded is inappropriate in my opinion. Just as there was an outcry over the broadcasting of the recent death of an Olympic Luger (in real time and in slow motion),this, too, seems to be a visual of death that the wider public need not see while reading about the facts concerning the assassination. But I'd like to know what other contributors think about this. ExistentialBliss (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel it isn't appropriate? It is informative; it conveys the immediate aftermath very well. I imagine it could distress some readers, but Wikipedia isn't censored (except for some BLPs, which this is not). --Avenue (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. ExistentialBliss (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

TIME OF DEATH

According to this video he died at 1:44am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujPidSx7Vus&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by R&BEditzs (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ira Goldstein?

At the bottom of the "Assassination" section, it names other people wounded in the violence. The name "Ira Goldstein" links to a fictional character from New Zealand commercials. Is there a real Goldstein who was injured, or is that a joke by someone? 98.220.211.83 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was a real Ira Goldstein shot in the hip. See the TIME article via ref [15]. I've removed the link to Ira Goldstein and others. Thanks for spotting that. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Background

The mainstream opinion is that Sirhan killed Kennedy over his opinions about Israel, including support for various Israeli actions. I think that if Kennedy expressed such opinions, this probably needs to be covered in the "Background" section (with sources, of course). The mainstream viewpoint needs to be thoroughly represented or some more of the fringe material needs to be removed per concerns expressed above. Fritzpoll (talk)

Sirhan was working as a stable hand for the radio commentator George Putnam at the time of the RFK assassination. Here is an interview with Putnam: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_35_18/ai_92352734/ which makes much of his association with Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, etc., and in which Putnam expresses his extreme views about the Arabs and Israel. Not sure why this isn't considered significant. Putnam was a hypnotist (performed at his own parties!) as well. Oops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.111.21 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm replacing the lead image in the infobox, per WP:NOTCENSORED.

1. The previous version used File:Robert F. Kennedy 1964.jpeg
2. At the time of the article's FA nomination, the image used was File:Robert F Kennedy crop.jpg (8 August 2008 version).
3. The readable prose size hasn't increased much since the FA promotion, but images have changed
4. My relocation of the image may appear slightly shocking, but as the subject of the article is the actual assassination, it can be reasonably argued that readers will be expecting to encounter such material early in the article.

-- Trevj (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: the lead image, it is incorrectly attributed. Please see (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/us/bill-eppridge-who-captured-powerful-60s-images-dies-at-75.html?src=recg) for details of correct author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.31.171 (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Close, but not an exact match. It almost looks like both photographers shot at the same time, but Eppridge was standing a foot or so to Yaro's left. Check the angle of Romero's head and arm, as well as the angle of Kennedy's body in relation to the photographer. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070309061013/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/mears_10-29.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/mears_10-29.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Schrade statement

Information Clearing House - Steve Fiorina - Man Shot Alongside RFK Say Sirhan Sirhan Should Be Granted Parole, 11 February 2016.     ←   ZScarpia   18:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Improvements

The Manchurian candidate hypothesis should be included (but leave MK Ultra references to the conspiracy page). The "theories" are not mutually exclusive or competing and have usually been presented as aspects of one cohesive narrative (ie. RFK Must Die). (If the aspect theories fit in overall theories shouldn't there be a different word for that? Elements vs whole?) The first paragraph should be that overarching "umbrella" with aspects following, and where it states "Some individuals involved in the original investigation and some researchers have suggested alternative scenarios for the crime, or have argued that there are serious problems with the official case" I recommend altering to "Some individuals involved in the original investigation and some researchers have argued that there are serious problems with the official case, or have suggested alternative scenarios and motives for the crime." Motives are missing. RFK stated that if president he would reopen his brother's case. "They" wouldn't allow that. I'll look for supporting sources. There's an article for Assassination of John F. Kennedy in popular culture so it's relevant to mention Derren Brown's Assassin episode available on YouTube. I'm not sure if it belongs here but it's also discussed on the talk pages of Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and Sirhan Sirhan. --JasonCarswell (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/lj36.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709174530/http://i1.democracynow.org/2008/6/5/democracy_now_special_robert_f_kennedy to http://i1.democracynow.org/2008/6/5/democracy_now_special_robert_f_kennedy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513185826/http://www.secretservice.gov/history.shtml to http://www.secretservice.gov/history.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://rfk%25E2%2580%2599s-son-slams-police-exhibiting-bloody-clothes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=154486&TICK=NIKC&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F02-04-2004%2F0002103183&EDATE=Feb%204%2C%202004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511202012/http://arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/Robert_F_Kennedy.html to http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/Visitor_information/Robert_F_Kennedy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203161347/http://rfkmustdie.blip.tv/file/1362352/ to http://rfkmustdie.blip.tv/file/1362352

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426042140/http://jclass.umd.edu/archive/hearitnow/1968.htm to http://jclass.umd.edu/archive/hearitnow/1968.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217193514/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/05/pete_hamills_ey.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/05/pete_hamills_ey.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

top paragraph

" shortly after midnight PDT at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. He had just won the California presidential primaries in the 1968 election. He was pronouncecd dead at 11:44 AM on June 6, about 26 hours after he had been shot.[3]" that is more than 26 hours be close to 36 hours Newyearbaby (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Polka dot dress woman. References

Elsewhere in the talk archives people were looking for more sources on the polka dot dress woman.

There are many Wikipedia-style references in this article:

• Incomplete Justice. Part One: At the Ambassador Hotel. By Larry Hancock, 19 May 2008. Mary Ferrell Foundation.

--Timeshifter (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

2,410 evidence photos destroyed in 1968. Also, door jambs and ceiling tiles

Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division was in charge:

"California has released voluminous files on the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, including a document showing that 2,410 photographs that were evidence in the case were destroyed that year. A scholar who pushed for release of the files says the destruction is deeply suspicious and should be investigated. ... the police also destroyed door jambs and ceiling tiles from the kitchen of the Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel where Mr. Kennedy was gunned down. Mr. Stone and other experts maintain that those items might have shed light on how many bullets were fired and on whether there was a second gunman."

Above quote is from this article:

• Robert Kennedy Assassination Photos Burned. Associated Press (AP). April 21, 1988. New York Times.

--Timeshifter (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

May 2018. 2 of RFK's children believe there was a 2nd gunman

RFK Jr. did an interview with the Washington Post:

• Who killed Bobby Kennedy? His son RFK Jr. doesn’t believe it was Sirhan Sirhan. By Tom Jackman. May 26, 2018. Washington Post.
• Did L.A. police and prosecutors bungle the Bobby Kennedy assassination probe? By Tom Jackman. June 5, 2018. Washington Post.
• Bobby Kennedy’s son suspects 2nd gunman killed father. May 26, 2018. The Portland Press Herald.
• RFK's children believe there was a second assassin with Sirhan Sirhan. By IrishCentral Staff. June 02, 2018. IrishCentral.

--Timeshifter (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Newer article in the UK's Daily Express, 2 October 2019.

• Bobby Kennedy’s son names ‘real killer’ 50 years after US politician's horror shooting UK Daily Express 2 October 2019. Mcvoorhis (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

In the last paragraph of the lead, make the following change:"...he didn't act alone." --> "..he did not act alone." 69.166.120.135 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done in two places in the article per MOS:N'T. In other news, that's possibly my new favorite wikishortcut. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

Please change four instances of "Ernard" to "Erhard" in the "Assassin's gun" section. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Jack Frost (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like only three instances were changed, but thanks for getting the process started. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Rummskartoffel (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Frank Mankiewicz quote is incorrect

If you listen to actual recordings of Mr. Mankiewicz speaking, it's clear he is actually saying (bold words inserted, strikeout removed from original):

"I have a short announcement to read, which I will read at this time. Senator Robert Francis Kennedy died at 1:44 a.m. today, June 6, 1968. With Senator Kennedy at the time of his death were his wife Ethel, his sisters Mrs. Stephen Smith, Mrs. Patricia Lawford, his brother-in-law Mr. Stephen Smith, and his sister-in-law Mrs. John F. Kennedy. He was 42 years old. Thank you."

This is a very clear recording of everything after the first sentence: Death announcement MrAureliusR_Talk! 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR needed

The article could perhaps need some formal review, checking it against the FA criteria. It was promoted eons ago, back in 2008. There are huge swaths of unsourced texts, as well as tags for inappropriate colloquialisms. I am also not positive that it is comprehensive, since the discourse around the shooting has changed significantly the last decade. The 'See also' should prolly also be nuked. Nutez (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)